Habibullo Abdussamatov, Dr. Sc. – Head of Space research laboratory of the Pulkovo Observatory, Head of the Russian/Ukrainian joint project Astrometria – has a few things to say about solar activity and climate. Thanks to Russ Steele of NCWatch
Key Excerpts:
Observations of the Sun show that as for the increase in temperature, carbon dioxide is “not guilty” and as for what lies ahead in the upcoming decades, it is not catastrophic warming, but a global, and very prolonged, temperature drop.
[…] Over the past decade, global temperature on the Earth has not increased; global warming has ceased, and already there are signs of the future deep temperature drop.
[…] It follows that warming had a natural origin, the contribution of CO2 to it was insignificant, anthropogenic increase in the concentration of carbon dioxide does not serve as an explanation for it, and in the foreseeable future CO2 will not be able to cause catastrophic warming. The so-called greenhouse effect will not avert the onset of the next deep temperature drop, the 19th in the last 7500 years, which without fail follows after natural warming.
[…] We should fear a deep temperature drop — not catastrophic global warming. Humanity must survive the serious economic, social, demographic and political consequences of a global temperature drop, which will directly affect the national interests of almost all countries and more than 80% of the population of the Earth. A deep temperature drop is a considerably greater threat to humanity than warming. However, a reliable forecast of the time of the onset and of the depth of the global temperature drop will make it possible to adjust in advance the economic activity of humanity, to considerably weaken the crisis.
Full Study is here. (PDF patience, takes a bit to load)
Richard (15:06:00) :
Leif Svalgaard (09:01:08) : They are nicely approaching my graph here: http://www.leif.org/research/TSI-LEIF.png.. All in all, this paper cannot be taken seriously.
Can yours? When your graph TSI-LEIF.png cannot even be found on the server?
Wordpress is very picky with extra periods. If you clicked on my original posting:
Leif Svalgaard (09:01:08) :
The fundamental conclusion of the paper is based on the top panel of their Figure 3 which shows TSI reconstructions the last 400 years. This plot is WAY out of date and its use basically invalidates the rest of the paper.
It is instruction to look at a recent poster [Froehlich is a co-author]:
ftp://ftp.pmodwrc.ch/pub/Claus/IAMAS-2009/iamas-poster_SABF.pdf
The last Figure shows how the TSI reconstructions have moved with time from the large variation to almost flat. They are nicely approaching my graph here: http://www.leif.org/research/TSI-LEIF.png
The PMOD data had bad calibration and instrument …
You would not have had your problem.
You problem came because you yourself screwed up the link:
Richard (13:56:00) :
Leif Svalgaard (09:01:08) : The fundamental conclusion of the paper is based on the top panel of their Figure 3 which shows TSI reconstructions the last 400 years. This plot is WAY out of date and its use basically invalidates the rest of the paper…
..the TSI reconstructions have moved with time from the large variation to almost flat. They are nicely approaching my graph here: http://www.leif.org/research/TSI-LEIF.png.. All in all, this paper cannot be taken seriously.
Bad, bad style
Richard (15:11:35) :
Sorry found it and “your graph” contains both Lean and Wang which Dr Abdussamatov uses.
No it does not contain Wang. He claims, incorrectly, that it does. Not quite honest here.
Richard (14:56:37) :
If that graph agrees with the temperature reconstructions it needs to be taken seriously. I’ll go with that.
This is the ultimate in cherry picking. Leif’s law strikes again: “if the data supports your contention, obviously the data is good”.
Richard (15:11:35) :
And what I note is THE SHAPE of the graphs are very similar.
No, not at all. The long-term trend is given by a line joining the minima. And mine is absolutely flat, partly because I agree with Lean 2008 when she doubts that there is any long-term change.
Richard (14:56:37) :
Another thing – Leif forecasts no drop of temperature in the near future, Dr Abdussamatov forecasts a drop.
I do think temperatures are falling [cold phase of PDO, etc] but this has nothing to do with the Sun. His forecast is based on cherry picked and outdated [wrong!] input and is there not valid, even if it should come true.
Leif Svalgaard (15:28:54) :
“Sorry found it and “your graph” contains both Lean and Wang which Dr Abdussamatov uses.”
No it does not contain Wang. He claims, incorrectly, that it does. Not quite honest here.
I said that clumsily. What I meant was that even though my graph has both, Abdussamatov does not use both [or show both] contrary to his claim.
“And mine is absolutely flat, partly because I agree with Lean 2008 when she doubts that there is any long-term change.”
“doubts”??
Yes Leif, but there are others that disagree with your (and Lean’s) assessment of TSI and the sun’s influence on climate in general, many whose recent published papers have been presented at WUWT. You have said that correlation is not causation, yet there cannot be causation without correlation and thus far to many of us the evidence for sun/climate connection is quite strong even if science isn’t able to explain much of it.
Piers Corbyn claims to have been using the sun to make his weather forecasts for 20+ years, so what is Leif’s opinion of Corbyn? Is he a charlatan? Does he in reality throw bones, use Tarot cards or summon spirits? Maybe use a Magic 8 ball?
I for one am not convinced the sun does not influence climate.
Thanks again, Leif, for your participation and patience.
Richard: You replied to Leif, “And what I note is THE SHAPE of the graphs are very similar. So this would CERTAINLY NOT invalidate any of Dr Abdussamatov’s conclusions as he is discussing how temperature VARIES with the TSI.”
The shapes of the graphs are in no way “very similar”. The Lean 2000 shows a steep rise in TSI minimum from the late 1800s to the 1940s, while the Leif 2007 TSI reconstruction shows little variation in the TSI minimums. The Lean 2000 TSI reconstruction, like Hoyt and Schatten (1993)…
http://s5.tinypic.com/mmuclk.jpg
…was manufactured to explain, in part, the rise in global temperature in the early 20th Century. This is the same reason that Abdussamatov is using it. It’s convenient. If we scale the TSI using a commonly used factor, we can see the assumed rise in global temperature that was created by the outdated TSI data:
http://s5.tinypic.com/2mg6rll.jpg
The above tinypic links are from my post “IPCC 20th Century Simulations Get a Boost from Outdated Solar Forcings”:
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/03/ipcc-20th-century-simulations-get-boost.html
Which Anthony also co-posted here at WUWT:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/03/05/ipcc-20th-century-simulations-get-a-boost-from-outdated-solar-forcings/
Had you researched the subject you would have discovered that Judith Lean no longer agrees with the variability of TSI minimums shown in her 2000 TSI reconstruction. Refer to Leif’s 10/26/08 @ur momisugly 14:55:41 comment on the following thread at WUWT. It agrees with his reply to you above:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/10/25/new-theory-predicts-the-largest-ozone-hole-over-antarctica-will-occur-this-month/
He wrote, “Note that Judith Lean [2002 and 2008] is agreeing with me that TSI hasn’t changed significantly over time. Nevertheless, the model-paper you reference, uses the old Lean [1995] and Hoyt and Schatten [1993] TSI-reconstructions that are simply wrong. Therefore the result is spurious and cannot be trusted.”
And if you’re wondering, there’s little difference between Lean 1995 and Lean 2000:
http://s5.tinypic.com/fp6qyp.jpg
Regards
After doing some other work, I have to side with Leif here that the Sun does not vary enough in order to change temperatures on Earth by very much.
There is a reason that it is very hard to tease out a solar cycle impact in the temperature record. It is so small that it can’t really be found.
Using the Stefan Boltzmann equations, even if the solar irradiance varied by 4 Watts/metre^2 (the maximum decline estimated for the Maunder Minimum versus the more recent 1 to 2 Watts estimates), this lowest estimate would only reduce temperatures at the surface by about 0.2C
The Sun has to vary more that it seems to do, or there has to be more impact from the solar wind, magnetic field or varying EM spectral output than has been demonstrated; for it to make much difference to surface temperatures.
Solar insolation can be higher or lower at the poles or high latitudes which can then change the Albedo of the Earth causing the ice ages for example, but this is more related to Earth’s orbital characteristics than changes in the Sun.
Really if PMOD or ACRIM or whatever, the sun looked like this during the 97-98 El Nino:
http://www.giurfa.com/theangrysun.jpg
As the Moche culture (north of Peru) saw it during MWP. I felt it like that on my skin. It was really aggresive.
Now, during the few minutes that there is a open sky, it feels feeble.
So, there must have been a difference, of what wavelengths I don´t know. All we know for sure that solar specialists will keep on discussing, as no one lived the experience, about curves and statistical adjustments, but hey! take some instruments and go out to determine what really happens.
Piers and colleagues have placed bets of about £1,000 with William Hill and Coral [Bookmakers] for snow at various locations on Christmas Day and stand to win many thousands if they are correct.
Piers whose record of weather bets is second to none* said: “We have just made a breakthrough in our ‘Solar Weather technique of long range forecasting – called SWT25 – and are 75% sure there will be snow in many but not all locations offered by boookies this Xmas, and we have a fair idea of where the best bets are likely to be”.
This £1,000 was of course lost.
http://julesandjames.blogspot.com/search/label/corbyn
DR (16:19:39) :
Yes Leif, but there are others that disagree with your (and Lean’s) assessment of TSI
And who might they be?
and the sun’s influence on climate in general, many whose recent published papers have been presented at WUWT.
This is a different question. and there does seem to be a 0.1K solar cycle variation [although only ‘seems’ as the correlation is a bit shaky – but if you believe…]
Piers Corbyn claims to have been using the sun to make his weather forecasts for 20+ years, so what is Leif’s opinion of Corbyn? Is he a charlatan?
He was supposed to tell today us how he does it. From looking at his self-congratulatory writings on his website, your charlatan theory does sound all that bad, but we should give him the benefit of the doubt and hear him out.
I for one am not convinced the sun does not influence climate.
For the one that is convinced already, evidence obviously doesn’t matter anymore.
Chillybean
Therefore I would say that the exact opposite is closer to the truth.
Leif Svalgaard
I think that kind of paranoia is not helpful
Please do not patronise me Leif. It’s not helpful to your cause but the truth is more important than your reputation. I think everyone here would acknowledge that you have a greater depth of knowledge of your field than most on the site but that alone does not make you right.
Sometimes it takes the better man to admit when he is wrong and move on.
Leif Svalgaard (17:06:16) :
“Corbyn? Is he a charlatan?”
He was supposed to tell us today how he does it. From looking at his self-congratulatory writings on his website, your charlatan theory does not sound all that bad,
Adolfo Giurfa (16:58:42) :
hey! take some instruments and go out to determine what really happens.
Solar activity leaves an imprint in tree rings and ice cores. We go out and find these and we measure these with instruments to see what really happened, for example: http://www.leif.org/EOS/Holocene-TSI.pdf or http://www.leif.org/EOS/2009GL039439.pdf
“Leif Svalgaard (17:06:16) :
“Corbyn? Is he a charlatan?”
He was supposed to tell us today how he does it. From looking at his self-congratulatory writings on his website, your charlatan theory does not sound all that bad,”
Stop it Leif, my respect for you is draining at an alarming rate now. Please leave the ad hom’s to the useful stupid people.
chillybean (17:06:16) :
Sometimes it takes the better man to admit when he is wrong and move on.
Doesn’t that apply to you?
and wrong about what?
chillybean (12:53:22) :
I think most people would agree that the older it is, the less chance there is of it having been distorted by alarmists.
You are making a serious accusation about people I know and respect and vouch for, and THAT was my problem with your posting. Unless you can demonstrate that these people distorted their data, you should keep that sort of crap to yourself if you were even halfway decent.
chillybean (17:22:55) :
my respect for you is draining at an alarming rate now.
Considering the accusations you make about people I care for, perhaps I would rather do without it.
Well said, George E. Smith, a beautiful description of how CO2 could affect atmospheric temps. It can’t affect “climate” really, because the temp of the atmosphere is a small factor in controlling the temp of the ocean, which I believe is the major player in the Earth’s climate. The other “ocean” that I feel is very important is the “gassy ocean” of water vapour. As always it is why you hold an opinion that is the important thing, not what the opinion is. I.e. lots of “deniers” are just as guilty of blinkered and logically fallacious thinking as are the AGW’ers.
I wonder how many people are like Adolfo and actually remember changes in what the sun felt like back then compared to now, that is interesting to say the least, what about the solar radiation causes that does one wonder?
Leif Svalgaard (17:06:16) :
From looking at his self-congratulatory writings…
Seems that you are projecting.
I didn’t see in Piers Corbyn’s web site that he was going to reveal those parts of his method on his web site. He said he was doing it today at a conference at Imperial College London.
A little congeniality may do some commenters some good.
Leif Svalgaard (17:17:32) :
Solar activity leaves an imprint in tree rings…
These are consequences not causes. There is a missing link out there, of course not of the “piltdown man” kind.
Adam from Kansas (18:09:43) :
Those who have had to work out in the weather over many years know better.
The notion of a homogenous state of Earth’s climate runs 180 degree out of whack to the human experience, who over the millenia have written to us.
It cannot be both ways.
Let’s see if I’ve got this right,
it’s not C02, it’s not the sun, huh, a missing link as the “first cause” of climate change on our tiny little watery planet. Like a drop of water on the galaxy by comparison.
That’s good. I like that.